New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 11:24am Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8744 of 8747)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Thinking about how things are happening, I've looked back at postings on this thread that I'm proud of between Christmas Eve of last year, and New Year's Day. 7000-7003 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.a229aP3zYzn^397117@.f28e622/8521

I began 2003 with 7177 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@93.axIya8leZCh^1311940@.f28e622/8700

"I think this is a year where some lessons are going to have to be learned about stability and function of international systems, in terms of basic requirements of order , symmetry , and harmony - at the levels that make sense - and learned clearly and explicitly enough to produce systems that have these properties by design, not by chance.

"The lessons are fairly easy, I believe, though not difficult to screw up. A problem is that perfect stability - and complete instability - are mirror images - and issues of balance and correct signs can be, in a plain sense, matters of life and death. And cost. For individuals, and whole systems. . . . . . I think that the administration is working hard, and becoming sensitive and sophisticated about a number of things - and this is a very hopeful time.

"With a large potential for (relatively small) disasters. The world as a whole isn't going to blow up really soon, for forseeable reasons - as it easily could have at a time when US - Russian communication was much less than it is today. But some millions of avoidable deaths - and ugly reverberations - could easily happen - and happen soon.

"I think all these disasters could be avoided, and that good things are in motion that could and should avoid the bad, and bring in much safer, more prosperous, humanly more flexible times.

"To do it, it seems to me this is the year where some lessons are going to have to be learned about stability and function of international systems, in terms of basic requirements of order , symmetry , and harmony . In the ways, and at the levels, that can work for the people and organizations involved. Lessons will have to be learned clearly and explicitly enough so that such systems can be developed - partly by evolution - but with a lot of specific design and crosschecking, as well. People always have to muddle through - but the muddling has to be better informed, about key issues of stability and function - or we're in trouble.

"Maybe things are neither as hopeful nor as dangerous as I think. But that's how it looks to me.

rshow55 - 11:27am Feb 9, 2003 EST (# 8745 of 8747)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Some Deaths Resonate, Others Pass Unnoticed By ERICA GOODE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/health/psychology/04PSYC.html

"Humans evolved to interact in small groups, to mourn their relatives and neighbors on the Saharan plain, not the abstract victims of heart disease or the people who perished in a massacre thousands of miles away.

". . . . emotions, developed to enhance the species' survival, keeping early humans one step in front of hungry lions, sometimes mislead in the modern world, Dr. Loewenstein argues.

"Reason dictates that statistics matter, that the deaths of tens of thousands merit more attention — and more resources — than the deaths of a few.

"But to reach this conclusion requires a certain detachment, a cool evaluation after a gut-level response.

"In the era of the sound bite and the human interest story, of endless airtime waiting to be filled, that assessment often does not take place.

"Symbols compel a response, while substance is frequently ignored. . . . "Our emotional reactions to events are badly mistuned," Dr. Loewenstein said.

"Still, rationality is unlikely ever to replace symbolic heft. Tragedy will never be defined solely by number.

But we can do better than we have been doing. And there are times when the leaders of our biggest nations are going to have to take responsibility - on big issues - where to act is in a real sense "playing God" - and where not to act is "denying God, or decency" in a compelling sense, as well.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense